Check Out Our Shop
Page 159 of 161 FirstFirst ... 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 LastLast
Results 3,951 to 3,975 of 4017

Thread: The Dynastar Thread

  1. #3951
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,177
    <p>
    Yeah, I have the 192, like it a bunch just wish it was a little bit shorter for tight areas and bumped out snow.</p>

  2. #3952
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    264
    Ain’t that called the 182?

  3. #3953
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    4,349
    there has to be a resident nordica expert that can chime in

  4. #3954
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by MCskid View Post
    So I have the 1st gen mfree 108, which I love. Sounds like the consensus is the new one is better? Also, any feedback on the new mfree 100? Thanks
    Whatcha want to know about it? I skied the 192. It is a much less substantial ski than the 108. Lighter and softer. I think it will be a very good ski for a lot of people, but it gives up a lot of charginess. It is a pretty versatile all mountain ski. I am less pumped on it the harder you want to push it or the funkier the snow.

  5. #3955
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    1,366
    I think I said this already, I have a 187 HL AM110 coming. I have a feeling it will be very similar to the 108 M-Free 192. I hope so, anyway. If I had not ordered that ski I would be picking up the M-Free. Super impressed.

  6. #3956
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,821
    What’s the mount point on the M-Free 100s? I’m interested to know if they “Sender Free’d” that ski as well.

  7. #3957
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,305
    I am also on the hunt for a one hundred waist firmer snow ski. I noticed that Dynastar moved their version two of their PU core to the MPros. This tells me they are onto something with a damp build. This core has been evolving for a few years now. All that said, after skiing Heritage Lab R Dimes, I am very far leaning to my next ski being another HL. Still curious about these Dynastars, Kastles, and Stoklis... but after having felt the HL build... I have to say-- the HL build is damn damp, carvy, and buttery, with MOs tune. HL is a new company but they are straight up slaying the entire industry. It is really hard for me to imagine how any OneTen waist ski could span the spectrum between surf and carve with more depth at each end of the spectrum. I wonder if the HL AMOneHundred version is the same. And I am saddened to read here that the Dynastar MF OneHundred is less chargy than the OneOEight. That should be the other way around. Maybe the MPro One Hundred is a better comparison to the AMOneHundred. The PU core is super interesting. But I do not demo skis. I buy them. Anyone in this incredibly niche universe been on both? Even just a core comparison and not necessarily a width comparison. Because honestly, I am pretty much splitting hairs at this point. I think my choice is going to come down to damp surfability between designs. Carving ice is going to be negligable for me. Both will hold an edge on the firm snow that I encounter in Japan.
    Last edited by gaijin; 02-20-2025 at 02:31 AM.

  8. #3958
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    1,366
    I don't have the details on the 100. I wasn't that interested, but jumped on it because it was there. If I were to guess, I would put the weight at 2000g and the mount point around -6/7. I will be curious what the actual measurements are. I have not skied the M-Pro, but I think that will be the burlier, damp freeride ski.

    Gaijin, the HL's are heavy. Maybe pushing the boundaries of what I want/need at my size and weight (6ft, 160lbs wet). My FR120's still haven't gotten a proper day, so I haven't really weighed in on them yet. It will be a proper throwdown between them and my 191 Rens that I love. I changed out my R110 order for the AM110 thinking it will be more versatile and a tad lighter. I am probably going to grab the Countach 110 to A/B it against the HL as my chargier ski. I could see holding both with the 300g weight difference. I could also jump on the M-Free 108 next year when it comes available to me. It slots in between the other two weight wise.

  9. #3959
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    6,183
    MCsKid- Unfortunately no. The shorter 108 is much much much less ski. I sold mine after a few days. Just not enough backbone when skiing crud and not enough length when skiing fresh.
    They're very similar to the 185 M-Free 99's, but those work better because I'm mostly skiing them on groomers and bumps, not trying to charge through cut-up snow.

    Ultimately I replaced the shorter 108's with HL FR110's which are as maneuverable and 10x the stability and damping.

    I also share the sentiment that I love the 192 108's, but wish I had an option what was a touch shorter just from a physical size perspective. Even if they're only ~189 measured, they're still quite long for tight bumps and tighter trees. For me, it's likely the HL AM110.

  10. #3960
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    6,183
    Gaijin- I have the M-Free 99 and it's a great "Medium Speed" ski. Fun to carve on groomers, fun to slip through some bumps. It's not a between storm charger. It's a "dial it back and have fun" between storms kinda ski. They're the skis I choose when I'm chillin with my kids and looking for lighthearted fun.

  11. #3961
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    264
    Extra pickles, which HL ski is most like the mfree 108?

  12. #3962
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    264
    Extra pickles, does 2 3/4 inches really make that much of a difference? That’s like 1.3 inches in the tip and tail. The 192 measures 189 and the 182 is a 182, 7cm=2 3/4 inches.

  13. #3963
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    voting in seattle
    Posts
    5,177
    182 skis significantly different from the 192, not just shorter. Taking the 192 shape and construction, cutting a few cm’s off the length, a couple mm off the width and corresponding weight loss would make a ripping “mostly-soft but not deep” resort ski IMO.

  14. #3964
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by MCskid View Post
    Extra pickles, which HL ski is most like the mfree 108?
    My bet is on the AM110.

  15. #3965
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    idaho panhandle!
    Posts
    10,495

    The Dynastar Thread

    Yeah, it will be the AM11zero


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  16. #3966
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    seatown
    Posts
    4,349

    The Dynastar Thread

    different strokes but I went HL RC ninety five in that slot. my last attempt was Woodsman ninety six. both one eighty seven

    not an mfree float feel but progressive enough to make any turn for me so far

    maybe go to the mfree one twelve, ignore the width and enjoy the forward mount

  17. #3967
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,305
    I’m gonna speculate that it’s either AMOneTen or ROneTen based on your terrain requiring you to unweight for turns or not.

    Trees versus high alpine, for example. Or— Mammoth versus JP.

    /pure speculation. Just an HL ROneTen fanboy from Tahoe now in JP who admits he’d probably want a kiss of camber for the Sierra snowpack and terrain.

    Bridger? ROneTen.

    All that was a lot to say I really wanna try an MProHundred vs an AMHundred for my next narrower slot.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  18. #3968
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by XtrPickels View Post
    Gaijin- I have the M-Free 99 and it's a great "Medium Speed" ski. Fun to carve on groomers, fun to slip through some bumps. It's not a between storm charger. It's a "dial it back and have fun" between storms kinda ski. They're the skis I choose when I'm chillin with my kids and looking for lighthearted fun.
    Can you/someone compare to a Rustler 9?

  19. #3969
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    1,366
    Gaijin, I agree completely. Skiing the M-Free with some camber and the full reverse FR120 is why I changed up from the R110 to the AM110. Our days at Squaw can be crazy. Yesterday I skied slush, sun affected crud, ice, wind buff, smooth groomers and 12 inches of pow. I was on a Deathwish 104. Today I am going to bring out the Blade Optic 114 since it crushes variable and chop. I just am not in love with the 114, but it does the big-mountain, go-fast thing well. It does not have much pop on piste and the long radius feels long and not engaging. Minor stuff, but still....

    I have been on the hunt for the perfect do-it-all ski for years. I know I need a ski closer to 190 than 180. It needs tip and tail rocker and some camber. At my weight it does not need to be crazy stiff, but I want it to be damp, so probably heavy-ish (22-2300g). The bigger M-Free 108/112 are both about as close as I have found. I hope the AM110 will do the same things and have that amazing HL goodness. This is the ski for when I am skiing with the bigger kids. When I am with the little kids (or my youngest son) the Deathwish skis 104/112 are perfect and super fun.

  20. #3970
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    6,183
    sf- Can't compare to Rustler 9. I did have the Rustler 11 in a 188. In general, I'd say the Rustler is a bit more energetic, less damp, less loose, lighter. If the Rustler was on one end of the spectrum, and the 192 MFree 108 / HL skis were on the the other, the shorter MFree 108 and the MFree 99 would be part-way between the two.

    MCskid- I don't know, but I'd speculate the AM110. Gaijin's thoughts are pretty solid.
    Re. Length - To be honest, this is what I'm wrestling with. I prefer the 192 M-Free in more open terrain. For example, I'd rather ski it at Big Sky rather than Bridger. Squaw rather than Winter park. I'd never take them to Eldora.
    186 Enforcer 104 (actual 185), 186 HL FR110, 186 Woodman 108 all feel like smaller skis. E.g. their tails get hung up less in steep bumps (which if we're honest is the terrain I lapped this morning at Eldora's West Ridge.

    What I'm coming to realize is that Heritage Labs, ON3P make skis that have the characteristics that I like in lengths that I like. The Dynastar M-Free is actually a touch behind on a cm vs cm comparison, but the extra length makes up for it. So the 192 has the feel that I like in a length that's a bit longer than optimal.
    I've gotten around this by always having another ~108mm soft-snow ski that's more biased to lower speeds, trees with kids, and "fun". This slot has been filled by Meridians, Woodsmans, etc. The HL FR110 was supposed to fill this spot, but the rocker is more than I was expecting and it's a great powder ski, but it's not the "all-mountain" ski that I was looking for. (Not the skis fault, it's great at what it does).

    So, I'm wondering if the AM110 would actually mean that I only needed 1 ski in that spot instead of 2.

  21. #3971
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins
    Posts
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by MCskid View Post
    So I have the 1st gen mfree 108, which I love. Sounds like the consensus is the new one is better? Also, any feedback on the new mfree 100? Thanks
    Also coming from the first gen. A few days on the new version now. The newer one definitely feels stiffer in the tails. I'd guess around 20%. Feels similar to the Proto.

    I'd gander the 112 is what I wanted the proto to be at a more approachable everyday width. The 108 now has less wheelie and is even more stable landing airs IMO - stomps landings with a little less chatter and finding your tips again.

    As a "freeride" ski. I would guess the 112 will attract the masses more for the type of skier who wants the revolt 114, Blank, or Rustler 11. But I've always been a fan of slightly narrower skis, so the 108 will always have my heart.

    Sent from my ThinkPhone by motorola using Tapatalk

  22. #3972
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    2,473
    picked up a pair of 185 mf100s. The are straight pull 181.4 - so about the same as the previous gen 99/108s and the same length as MF 112s. The rocker lines are very similar if not identical. MF100s have lot more camber compared to MF112s, and share a pretty supportive flex pattern. The def have hybrid cores and a titanal plate underfoot ref pic below. I skied them back to back with BO98s today and the differences are about what you&#39;d expect. MF100s are stronger and have a higher speed limit in variable, but their shorter effective edge makes the tails a bit less engaging while exiting a turn. It is easier to engage the pop in BO98s when jumping off stuff. So if you want a more soft and variable snow BO98s then these are great. They will be my new low tide ski, and early/late season travelling ski. They are mounted with cast at +3 from the 7.7 mount point. I have been very, very happy with the MF112 mounted about there, so went the same way on these. The tails will prob be a lot sharper / stronger mounted at rec (spit you out of a turn more), I prefer the added balance and ease of release. The conditions today were slush and soft groomers, kinda easter like. Sun and intermittent rain. Both MF100s and BO98s skied the conditions well - the latter carved slightly better, the latter skied fast better. I reset the base bevel before skiing the MF100s, did not have to detune due to the conditions.

    SF100s are confirmed by Rossi&#39;s alpine category manager Jake Stevens to not have any titanal in any length, so they are - if so - def not the same ski, even if the might very similar in other respects. The titanal depicted above is symmetrical. The seeming translucent top sheet is seemingly just an imprint as it does not match what is seemingly the wooden part of the core. MF112s do not have any such indent in the top sheet, unlike MF99s and previous gen MF108s

  23. #3973
    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    Boise
    Posts
    214
    Hey Kid good to get a mag report on the 100s, gonna have my eye out for a decently priced pair for a travel ski, same use case you describe. Reading between the lines they sound a lot like the ski everyone wanted the SF100 to be. I was iffy on the top sheets but they look rad with the Rasta CAST mix you’ve got going. Looking forward to updates when you’ve got some more time on them - did you get a weight on your pair before you mounted em up?
    There are lions and there are sheep. So, which one are you?

  24. #3974
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    586
    Those MF 100 sounding very similar to my impressions of the SF 100 vs BO 98 but the SF 100 just a bit less precise on edge and noticeably looser when flat. My SF 100 have a similar raised mid section that they must be using heavier fiberglass maybe for binding reinforcement? Curious what the drill diameter spec is on the MF 100 to see if it does have metal like the MFree 108 and 112 underfoot.

  25. #3975
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    North Van
    Posts
    3,821
    Maybe not a back to back comparison, but I think you had the MF 99s as well at some point, right? How would they compare to the MF 100?

    I’m glad to hear they’re maintaining a similar recommended mount point to the previous version, which I find strikes a good balance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •